> So: is this actually a new stance on Apple’s part, as this article would have us believe, or did Sony violate guidelines they should have been aware of and play the Evil Draconian Apple card when they got bounced? Okay, so the latest controversy is that Apple blocked a Sony eBook reader app because Sony included a way within that app to purchase new eBooks. Unlike the Kindle app, which sends you out to a web browser to make new purchases, this app actually lets you buy right within the app itself. This is clearly a violation of Apple’s published rules, which is why Amazon coded its app the way it did. There’s no change in policy here.

So I think we have an obvious answer to the question above. Certain members of the press can’t resist the “Apple is Evil” meme, and certain companies, like Sony, have a vested interest in spreading this FUD.

The day you can purchase a Sony eBook on an Amazon Kindle, THEN this story might have some small shred of credence. Until then, Apple is doing nothing different from anyone else in the industry.

And besides, why should Apple be forced to allow any schmo take advantage of the incredible delivery system that is the App Store without having to pay Apple? You wouldn’t expect Target stores to stock items on its shelves if the sale of those items didn’t send a small percentage back to Target, would you? How else would Target pay its employees?

So Sony should be able to sell its eBooks via Apple’s store, and keep all the profit?

This is a silly argument.

Let’s take it a step further. Let’s say Apple allows this sort of app to be distributed on the Store. Now any developer is able to give away its app for free and then sell whatever it wants within the app, and Apple never sees a dime. Does that sound fair to anyone with a brain? Would you set up a store front and pay for bandwidth, and keep the healthy ecosystem going with millions of dollars of R&D and advertising and such, and then sit idly by as people sold stuff in your market without paying you?

Now, blocking content that was already paid for, such as not allowing apps like Kindle to download previously purchased books, would be a problem. But APPLE HASN’T DONE THAT. It has shown no intention of doing that, either. Speculation to the contrary is just speculation, coming from the very people (SONY) who would profit best from that speculation.

I would argue that Apple COULDN’T block previously purchased content, because then tens of thousands of apps would have to be pulled from the store. Dropbox comes to mind as a simple example.

> No, no. That’s only a dumb scheme if you think of the PlayBook as a consumer device, like the iPad. If they’re trying to sell them to IT managers instead of consumers, it’s an interesting play. To those folks, this invisible umbilical means that their lives won’t be complicated by a dumbass user (likely the kind who’s paid enough to own an estate with a living chessboard in which each of the game pieces is a painted giraffe) who loses a tablet somewhere. I agree with Ihnatko that this move clearly shows that Blackberry is now leaning the Playbook toward the IT professional, rather than the consumer. But if you ask me, the strategy from RIM has been anything but consistent.

If the plan all along was to market it to IT, then why call it the “PlayBook.” Why the flashy promo video from a few months ago? That was clearly not targeted toward server geeks. So is this a recent decision to switch back to IT?

My guess is that RIM still doesn’t’ know what it wants to do with this product. And that’s just sad. Not only did they announce this vapor product way before it was ready; they announced it before they had even decided what the target audience would be. That’s some serious mismanagement on the executive staff’s part.

Welcome to RIM 2011. Rehashing failed Palm strategies from 2007. Why not just call it the RIM Foleo and be done with it?

Those incoherent answers during interviews with the CEO are starting to make more sense now.

At the end of the day, there’s is still no answer to the simple question: Who will buy this thing?

Maybe RIM will figure out the obvious answer and kill this thing before it launches. You’re copying that much from Palm already; might as well go all the way with it.

> At a lunch in Sydney today, Patrick Lo said Apple’s success was centred on closed and proprietary products that would soon be overtaken by open platforms like Google’s Android. > > Apple has had unparallelled success by being able to control the entire ecosystem around its products, from the hardware to the software to the acquisition of content and apps through iTunes. > > It has used this to effectively dominate the market and shut out competitors. Consumers have also benefited because they get a consistent experience and products that are easier to use. > > Lo said Apple’s closed model only worked because, in many product categories like MP3 players, “they own the market”. > > However, he said this was only a temporary state of affairs and pointed to the fact that Google’s open-source Android platform for smartphones – which any manufacturer can use for free – recently overtook iPhone in market share in the US. > > “Once Steve Jobs goes away, which is probably not far away, then Apple will have to make a strategic decision on whether to open up the platform,” said Lo. > > “Ultimately a closed system just can’t go that far … If they continue to close it and let Android continue to creep up then it’s pretty difficult as I see it.” I love how people say things like this, and then other people print it, and then others read it, all the while thinking that it bears some resemblance to reality. It doesn’t.

The iPod only worked as a closed system for Apple because “they own the market.” And how exactly did Apple end up owning that market? Did that happen before or after the “closed” iPod? I can’t remember.

“Closed systems don’t go that far.” What the hell does that even mean? Anyone who seriously thinks the iPod didn’t go that far is pretty delusional. A decade later, and the iPod is still by far the dominant MP3 player on earth.

“If they continue to close it and let Android continue to creep up then it’s pretty difficult as I see it.” Let Android creep in? Creep in to what? The iPhone is still growing market share. The recent deal with Verizon will prop up market share even further as it stunts Android growth in the US. The iOS ecosystem will continue to gain momentum as Android struggles to attract developers of anything other than ringtones and ad-based-crapware. And in the midst of this, Apple is supposed to “open” up the iPhone? For what reason? What good could possibly come from Apple letting go of its desire to curate the iOS software platform to the benefits of its loyal users? We’d get more ad-ware, carrier-controlled software updates, and all the ringtones we’ve ever dreamed of. Oh, and a task killer. That would be great.

And then, just in case we weren’t sure yet if this guy was a total a-hole or not, he throws in that cheap line about Steve “going away.” Wow. I don’t even know what to say to that.

Most of the losers in the tech industry probably can’t wait for Steve Jobs to go away. Because that’s sure as hell easier than competing with him, isn’t it? Just close your eyes and wish him away.

Tim Cook and company are going to have an easy time staying on top of this industry when Steve decides it’s time to hand over the reigns.

> The free online television service has become one of the most-watched online video properties in the U.S. and a top earner of web-video ad dollars since its 2008 launch. > > []() > > But its owners—industry powerhouses NBC Universal, News Corp. and Walt Disney Co.—are increasingly at odds over Hulu’s business model. Worried that free Web versions of their biggest TV shows are eating into their traditional business, the owners disagree among themselves, and with Hulu management, on how much of their content should be free. > > []() > > Fox Broadcasting owner News Corp. and ABC owner Disney are contemplating pulling some free content from Hulu, say people familiar with the matter. The media companies are also moving to sell more programs to Hulu competitors that deliver television over the Internet, including Netflix Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc. I had my worries about Hulu from the start, mostly because it was owned by a network (NBC). Never underestimate the power of a network executive to screw the customers.

In all seriousness, though, I think it was an unfair advantage, owning a significant chunk of content that you could then hold back from other competing services.

Two things that surprised me about Hulu’s success: First, the fact that people were willing to watch TV on their computer screens only. (When introduced, Hulu was strictly computer-only—there was no TV streaming option of any kind.) This continues to boggle my mind. The idea that you have a 42″ plasma tv in the living room, but you’re going to watch shows on a 15″ laptop with crappy speakers. Where’s the logic in that?

Second, the fact that it was ad-sponsored. The ads surprised me because I honestly thought people would not want to sit through ads anymore. (This was supposed to be a re-invention of TV, not a rehash of the old system.) Certainly, a dollar or two per episode was a better option than sitting though boring ads, right?

More importantly, I thought there was no way the ads on an Internet service would come close to making up for the difference in ad revenue on network television. In other words, as more people flocked to Hulu and ditched their traditional Cable TV viewing, the networks were going to lose money and figure out that web ads weren’t enough. Web ads are literally worth pennies vs. TV’s six-figure ad buys. The business model was not sustainable long-term.

That second part seems to be coming true. (Admittedly, I was wrong about the first. People really are freetards, when you get right down to it.) So now millions of Hulu users are going to be bait-and-switched into some new version of the service that costs them in some way. I wonder if they’ll be smart enough to revolt, or if they’ll just start coughing up the cash to feed their addiction?

I’m sure NBC will find some way to make the service completely unusable for everyone.

> Raney said that Verizon iPhone owners will be able to take advantage of the 3G wireless hotspot feature for an extra $20 per month on top of the iPhone’s required voice and data plans—that’s the same price that applies to current Verizon smartphone owners. Some wishful thinkers will no-doubt be disappointed by this, but I have to say, it’s not at all surprising. And compared to AT&T’s tethering plans, it’s a great deal. After all, for that extra $20 a month you at least get a separate pool of 2GB to use. AT&T charges you $20 just for the privilege of using tethering with no extra data allotment. (Which sort of reminds me of those times in college when I’d get charged for going to parties even when I wasn’t drinking. You want me to pay you just to walk into your dark, smelly living room and hang out with a bunch of drunk people? No thanks.)

The bottom line is that Verizon had NO GOOD FINANCIAL REASON to give this feature away. People who want to jump from AT&T will jump for the coverage issues alone. People who don’t care about the phone coverage aren’t going to pay the $325 to get out of their AT&T contracts just to get a free hotspot. It’s a niche feature. So all Verizon had to do was charge less than AT&T is charging for tethering, which is what we all assume AT&T will charge for the hotspot when iOS 4.3 is released next month.

Companies don’t leave money on the table unless they have to. Hotspots and tethering are expensive extras because few people use them. Right now, it’s in all carrier’s best interests to keep it that way, so they can keep the load on the network reasonable. Giving away free data on the 3G network is like inviting your users to prove AT&T’s network doesn’t suck so bad after all.